Key Simpson Defense Witness Contradicts Self

A potentially key defense witness struggled on the stand Friday, contradicting herself again and again--raising doubts about her credibility and creating problems for defense attorneys who need her to bolster O.J. Simpson’s alibi on the night of the murders he is accused of committing.

Behind the scenes, meanwhile, defense attorneys faced another possible setback: Sources said Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito tentatively has decided to remove another juror from the panel--a 46-year-old African American man who sported a San Francisco 49ers cap during the recent jury field trip to Brentwood. Sources said that man failed to disclose a past incident of domestic abuse on his extensive jury questionnaire. They denied that he had made a bet on the outcome of the case, as a recent television report alleged.

Simpson has pleaded not guilty to the June 12 murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman.

In arguing that Simpson could not have committed the crimes, attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. announced during his opening statement that a witness would take the stand to say that she saw Simpson’s car parked in front of his house about the time authorities say the murders were committed. Rosa Lopez, a housekeeper who lived and worked next door to Simpson, is the witness whom Cochran has said could supply that testimony, making her a potentially crucial defense witness.

Although the jury was not present Friday, the obvious mishaps by Lopez threatened to undermine one prong of the defense and presented Simpson’s lawyers with a difficult quandary about whether to continue to rely on her after advertising her as an important part of their case during opening statements.

Dressed in a purple sweat suit and testifying after a short night’s sleep, Lopez contradicted herself on several points. Among other things, she at first said she had made reservations to fly to El Salvador, then admitted she had not. She also at first alleged that she feared for her safety if she did not immediately leave the country and then she was confronted with evidence that she had booked a round-trip ticket to El Salvador just three days ago--suggesting that she intended to return to the United States.

Although Lopez’s credibility problems created new risks for the defense calling her, the perils of her taking the stand were softened for the defense by Ito’s ruling on how lawyers could question her. Over the objections of prosecutors, Ito allowed Lopez to take the stand outside the presence of the jury while television cameras recorded the event.

If she flees to El Salvador, as she has threatened, defense attorneys could then introduce the tape. The downside of that approach would be that Lopez’s credibility problems could hurt her with the jury and undercut a central element of the defense’s case.

Ito’s ruling extended the court day into the evening just one day after the judge had imposed shorter court hours. Those hours were intended to lighten the load on the attorneys in the case, but Friday’s session tailed into the evening as Ito wanted to secure Lopez’s testimony in case she later turns out to be unavailable to take the stand.

The proceedings were further delayed while prosecutors huddled to discuss strategy. One option, according to sources would be asking Ito to put Lopez in jail to ensure that she does not flee the country, as she threatened. Another would be bringing the jury into court to let the panel hear Lopez for themselves.

Under questioning from Cochran, Lopez said she was planning to leave for El Salvador on Saturday to flee news reporters who she said have hounded her since her name first became linked to the Simpson case. Breaking down in tears at one point, Lopez, who testified through an interpreter, said her daughter told her she was no longer welcome at her house.

“She told me that if I came to testify, she didn’t want me in her home,” Lopez said.

“Did that make you sad?” Cochran asked, as Lopez dabbed at her eyes with tissue.

“Very,” she replied.

Lopez’s testimony struck a nerve with some of the viewers who watched her on television. The court received job offers, as well as offers of food, cars and other gifts for the former housekeeper, who said she gave up her job because of the pressure on her. Carl Jones, Lopez’s lawyer, said his office was similarly deluged.

But prosecutors focused on her testimony, not her plight. And in the process, they found a number of inconsistencies that raised questions about whether she was telling the truth.

Lopez said, for instance, she had packed her bags and was ready to catch a plane for El Salvador. She added that she already had made plane reservations for the trip, saying she planned to leave tonight.

But Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden announced during his cross-examination that prosecutors had uncovered evidence casting doubt on that sworn testimony.

“Miss Lopez, we just called the airline,” Darden said after consulting with his colleague, Deputy Dist. Atty. Cheri A. Lewis. “They don’t show a reservation for you. Can you explain to the court why you just told the court that you have a reservation?”

“Because I am going to reserve it, sir,” Lopez answered. “As soon as I leave here, I will buy my ticket, and I will leave.”

Darden jumped on that inconsistency, however, referring to her testimony that she had made a reservation as a lie. He and Lopez traded sharp remarks as he pressed her on that point, eventually eliciting her admission that she had lied in her first account about the reservations.

As the day continued and Darden kept up the pressure on Lopez, other inconsistencies emerged: At first Lopez said her niece had paid for a plane ticket so that she could appear in court Friday, then she acknowledged that Cochran had paid for that ticket.

Even more damagingly, Lopez said in a Feb. 17 declaration that she was in fear for her safety and intended to leave the country imminently. In fact, however, a travel agent took the stand Friday and said that Lopez made reservations on Feb. 21 to fly round-trip to El Salvador.

She also first said she was planning to leave the state immediately after she finished testifying for the day, then she said she planned to fly from Los Angeles to El Salvador on tonight.

“How are you going to leave from LAX tomorrow night if you are going to be in another state?” Darden asked.

Lopez said she planned to leave Los Angeles Friday night and then return today. Later, Cochran allowed her to elaborate on that answer by asking whether she had any place to stay in Los Angeles.

“Because of this case, you have no place to stay, is that correct?” Cochran asked.

“Yes,” she responded.

Despite Cochran’s attempts to bolster Lopez’s credibility, the day was a rough one for the defense, forcing Simpson’s lawyers to choose whether they want to call a witness who would come under withering attack or to forgo calling her after telling the jury that she would appear.

Ito himself was struck by the contradictions in Lopez’s testimony, commenting at one point to Darden: “It is a contradictory record. You’re right about that.”

Prosecutors took aim at the contradictions and urged Ito not to grant the request for a special examination of Lopez outside the presence of the jury. “She promised to tell the truth, and she did the exact opposite,” Darden declared.

But Ito said he feared that if he denied the request to question Lopez now and she disappeared, he might deprive Simpson of an essential witness and a fair trial. The safe course, Ito said, was to allow the special questioning.

Nevertheless, legal experts questioned the value of Lopez’s testimony, given the success that prosecutors had in undermining her credibility Friday.

“It is not a good omen of things to come for the defense,” said defense lawyer Gigi Gordon. “This isn’t the kind of witness I would want to hang my case on.”

In the view of experts, Darden’s success at catching Lopez in a misstatement about whether she had reservations to leave the country was the most devastating setback for the Simpson defense.

“It was amazing,” said Loyola Law professor Laurie Levenson. “It’s rare that you catch a witness red-handed in a bold-faced lie.”

Added Levenson: “This is one of the big dangers of what Johnnie Cochran did in his opening statement. People said he over-promised, and it may be coming home to roost. Rosa Lopez has been neutralized. One of the key defense witnesses exploded in their face today.”

Friday’s hearing showed both the promise and peril of alibi witnesses, according to San Diego defense attorney Elizabeth Semel. “Alibi witnesses are very problematic,” she said. “If they work--by that I mean if they’re believable to the jury--it can be the whole ballgame in a case. A credible alibi witness can win you an acquittal all by themselves. That potential makes them superficially seductive for the defense. You look at their testimony and think, ‘If it works, it works in a big way.’

“On the other hand, if you’re a prosecutor, you also know how powerful an alibi witness can be if they’re believed. So, you have to look for every way to attack them. Their potential bias, mental competence, physical impairment, all sorts of things became relevant.

“If you’re an experienced defense lawyer you should be looking at where those attacks are likely to come from and have a clear sense of just how severe their impact is likely to be,” Semel said.

The troubles with Lopez were only the most obvious problem for the Simpson defense team Friday. Behind the scenes, sources said, the defense may be about to lose a juror who had sent a number of signals suggesting that he might be supportive of the defendant.

That juror, who works as a security guard and courier in Long Beach, has a brother who works for the San Francisco 49ers, the last team that Simpson played for in his storied football career. That juror wore a 49ers cap during the recent jury tour, and he paused to linger over photographs of Simpson while inside the former football star’s Brentwood home--despite Ito’s order that the jurors ignore the pictures.

Prosecutors took note of the man’s conduct, but that was not what has led to Ito’s tentative decision to drop him from the panel, sources said.

According to the sources, the juror had a conversation with a colleague that could be interpreted as predicting the outcome of the case. But the more definitive basis for the challenge to him remaining on the panel, sources said, is that he failed to disclose a past experience with domestic violence on his extensive jury questionnaire.

The sources added, however, that a televised report stating that the man had placed a bet on the case’s outcome was incorrect. If the juror is replaced, he would be the fourth ousted since 24 panelists and alternates were sworn in to hear the high-profile case.

The potential loss of this juror would be an especially difficult blow for the defense, which is pleased by the composition of the jury and has generally resisted efforts to excuse jurors. But defense lawyers and the team’s jury consultant say they are equally confident in the 12 alternates picked to fill in for jurors who are excused.

“We are just as happy with the alternates as we are with the 12,” said Jo Ellan Dimitrius, the defense team’s highly acclaimed jury consultant. Dimitrius declined to discuss any pending juror misconduct investigations.

Times staff writers Henry Weinstein and Tim Rutten contributed to this article.